Quote:
American independence fascinates me. One of the interesting things about it is that it was an entirely undemocratic process - the majority of the people in the Thirteen Colonies were anti-independence (narrowly) and the issue was largely pushed through (by force, of course) by an educated liberal elite.
You had some of the smartest people in the world at that time and you had a system which enabled them to put their heads together to imagine a better future. There's a lesson there.
I have to agree with you the process is/was fascinating. On one hand we have guys who want to ensure that they continue in their pursuit of wealth unfettered by the English monarchy. That was the main thrust of the quest for independence, nothing more. They were monied, propertied whites of priviledge yet they were not without ideals. Those ideals included freedom for all men, but the definition of who was to be free or maybe more correctly considered men was not quite clear at the outset. There were those for whom this idependence thing was not so important as to be acquiescent to giving up their slaves (property), upon whose labours their profits depended. Quite a sticky wicket at that time and basically they kicked the can down the road on that one and we know how that went.
Unfortunately, in our own educational system I do not recall getting into the depth of the American Revolution as much as would have been done over there. Your knowledge (or education) is far superior to ours in the terms of history and geography. I don't think it is just because I was lazy and inattentive; I was to a good measure but I recall the main thrust of the American Revolution to be Lexington and Concord, Boston Massacre, Boston Tea Party, Stamp Tax, Tea Tax, Mean, Old King George, Redcoats (evil) Quartering of Soldiers, and Sugar Tax. Bastards! Of course I am leaving a few things out such as Bunker Hill and Saratoga. But the reasons why all these things happened are the important part of why they happened at all. Surely by the time is was in school through the later 60s throughout the 70s we were no longer justifying our actions; what would be the point? We were nearly to 200 years by that point. Or was I really that inattentive...
The lesson I think is that we need a return to patriotism in our politics here and stop the party bickering and get things done. But it seems these people we have in Congrefs (heheh) today are nothing more than an extension of the moneyed, propertied white situation of the past, maybe even more so today because they do not seem to exhibit the ideals of our Forefathers. They are more in tune with getting money for themselves, staying in power and obtaining pork barrel legislation for their states and constituents, more in tune with deals than ideals. Case in point: Look at any Congressman today and see what he was worth when he was voted in and the incredible increase in wealth since. What did Nancy Pelosi have before? Eric Cantor (now on Wall street)? John Kerry? All of these folks and many more have been accused of insider trading. Ever hear of the STOCK Act? Read about it and know this:
Quote:
Overall the STOCK Act has garnered positive support from both houses of congress. STOCK will effectively put an end to congressional insider trading. However, guarded optimism has been expressed by politicians such as Eric Weissmann. Weissman, a candidate for Congress in Colorado’s 2nd Congressional District, recently claimed that STOCK was long overdue and that "The passage of the STOCK Act by both the House and Senate is a good first step in deterring these abusive practices, but doesn’t go far enough to protect the American people from members of Congress who chose to act with self-interest over public good"
and
Quote:
The STOCK Act was modified on April 15, 2013, by S.716. This amendment modifies the online disclosure portion of the STOCK Act, so that some officials, but not the President, Vice President, Congress, or anyone running for Congress, can no longer file online and their records are no longer easily accessible to the public. In Section (a)2, the amendment specifically does not alter the online access for trades by the President, The Vice President, Congress, or those running for Congress. [11] The reasoning for this change was to prevent criminals from gaining access to the financial data and using it against affected persons. This bill was introduced by Senator Harry Reid on April 11, 2013. It was considered by the Senate and passed by unanimous consent. In the house, S.716 received only 14 seconds before being passed by unanimous consent. Now you know partly why most members of Congress are millionaires and the D and the R doesn't matter, each is as bad as the other.
 |
Did you ever see such a messed up situation in your whole life, son? |
|
bastard by name